I'm not an expert of any kind on trackwork or sleepering arrangements, but sleepers 32 and 33 look a little short, and I'm not sure that they would be angled the way you have them, I would have thought that they would have been laid perpendicular to the far rail - I only say that because I think it would look aesthetically better.

Ian

I'm not an expert of any kind on trackwork or sleepering arrangements, but sleepers 32 and 33 look a little short, and I'm not sure that they would be angled the way you have them, I would have thought that they would have been laid perpendicular to the far rail - I only say that because I think it would look aesthetically better.

 

Ian

Yep. I'd have to agree with Ian.

As a rough guide, I reckon the distance from knuckle to knuckle (or possibly one more either side) should be done in whole crossing timbers that traverse both parallel roads (will the exit of the slip be parallel to the straight road? It's a bit difficult to tell for me), and be set at 90 degrees to the straight road. Only the diverging road would have offset sleepers. These would be interlaced with the straight road as the spacing and distance allowed. But I could be wrong....

Jan

I'd agree the timbers are a tad short but it's a wee bit late now! Could I use the excuse there were a rather hungry gang of super rats about, and that timber had spilt jam on?

Regarding offsets. Truthfully it's an area that I'm unsure on and have been asking for collective opinions. Keith Norgrove suggested the way I've done it so took his advice. I was thinking to myself also that the single slip should take priority in the timbering because it's the biggest and most complex formation, so everything else could pander to that. Weather this is true or not I know not. Thanks for your thoughts/advice, I do appreciate them, it's abit too late to change things now though (next post (26))

More research should shed light on things I guess.